What argument has been used to justify the introduction of a restriction on imports?

Question

A question that i wanted to know, please give me an insight as much as you can and tell me the important key words i need to look up, so i can get a detailed explanation in books.

Answer 1

"Import Substitution Industrialization (also called ISI) is a trade and economic policy based on the premise that a country should attempt to reduce its foreign dependency through the local production of industrialized products.... Insofar as its suggestion of state-induced industrialization through governmental spending, it is largely influenced by keynesian thinking, as well as the infant industry arguments adopted by some highly industrialized countries, such as the United States, until the 1940s. ISI is often associated with dependency theory, though the latter adopts a much broader sociological outlook which also addresses cultural elements sought to be linked with underdevelopment."

Answer 2

Hmm I think its because people within the country dislike the competition from outside of the country.  Since they'll have to compete with foreign competitors, they could lose jobs, etc.  That is why the government has taken action (in US) against imports and it has also provided much help to its own domestic companies (by companies I'm also including farms within the country because they are given protection (economic protection) and help to deal with foreign imports, etc).  For instance, the US has some tariffs still and the US and Europe have given farmers subsidies.  I heard (not totally sure on it but I heard about) that the US still provides much assistance and maybe investment into manufacturing sector- like carmakers who produce vehicles within the US.  However, many economists are against this because doing so is investing in an inefficient area (because the manufacturing area is sadly not doing well).  Critics would say that the United States should invest and protect these areas because if they don't there could be more job loss.

Counterpoints to that would be that the US could be investing in more efficient, productive fields.  Such as health care.  Maybe even research and development.  Or it could invest in alternate energy too, a plan supported by both Barack Obama and John McCain (supporting alternative energy creation and making more jobs through it).  However, those against the US stopping investment in the manufacturing sector would still argue for the protection of manufacturing due to jobs loss, etc.

I can go on about this argument but I'd write too much.  Rather I want to provide an introduction for you (and want to cut down on how much I write because I know this is a lot..a bunch to read lol sorry).  But I hope it helps you!

:) Also I can go into  another debate.  This one over protection for farmers.  Some say its necessary.  They want to protect farmers from foreign farms, etc.  They make a strong case for them too.  And thanks to recent problems- weather hurting crops, high oil prices leading to high food price- the pressure to protect American farmers is great.  However, many economists are against farm subsidies.  They point out that farmers outside the United States can produce food at much cheaper costs.  Also, they point that thanks to these subsidies, American farmers dominate the market, causing foreign farmers to lose business and be poor- leading to heavier poverty around the world.  Another point they make is that what's subsidized is unhealthy food...and that the people that receive the subsidies the most are richer farmers.

So there's a tough argument to both sides.  

There are many other arguments to go research too.  But I've given you a pretty good list so far.  You may want to look at how this issue has affected Mexico too.  Foreign jobs and companies coming in have affected domestic companies, etc.  Many have been forced out- its a pretty controversial issue.

Look up these terms too-

Free Trade

Tariff and imports

Protectionism

Efficiency of Trading

NAFTA

Quotas

Farm subsidies